Paquet et al v. Smith

Filing 78

Minute Entry for Evidentiary Hearing held on 5/2/2011 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, granting 47 Motion for Protective Order, granting 67 Motion to Compel, and denying 73 Motion to Continue. The plaintiffs had requested an evident iary hearing to rebut allegations in the motion but failed to appear, even by telephone, for the hearing they requested. The deposition of defendant Mark Smith has not been noticed for the week of May 2, 2011 and therefore will not be taken. The cour t required Mr. Smith to appear in Denver, and it is noted Mr. Smith was present in the courtroom. The plaintiffs have therefore forfeited their right to take Mr. Smith's deposition. The deposition of Elizabeth Paquet is scheduled to begin May 3, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. The deposition of Guy Paquet is scheduled to begin May 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Reasonable sanctions will be imposed on Plaintiff's counsel and the plaintiffs for failure to attend, at least by telephone, this hearing. Defense counsel will submit a cost statement detailing their attorney fees for appearing as well as lodging expenses for Sunday, May 1, 2011. For further information, please see attached minutes. (Court Reporter: FTR - Nick Richards) (kmtcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00813-CMA-KMT

FTR - Courtroom C-201

Date: May 2, 2011

Deputy Clerk, Nick Richards

GUY PAQUET, and
ELIZABETH PAQUET,

No appearance

Plaintiffs,
v.
MARK SMITH,

William James Garehime, Jr.
Louis Daniel Lopez, Jr.

Defendant.

COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Court in session: 9:17 a.m.
Court calls case. Appearance of counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. James E. Preston,
does not appear. The Court announces that it waited 18 minutes to see if the plaintiffs’
counsel would call in for the hearing. Mr. Preston made no telephonic contact with the
court.
Evidentiary Hearing called in regard to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc.
No. 47, filed March 16, 2011] and Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Request for
Hearing [Doc. No. 67, filed April 28, 2011]. The Court will also consider Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion to Reset F.R.Civ.P 37 [Doc. No. 73, filed May 1, 2011] and Plaintiffs’
Request for Judicial Notice F.R.E 201(d) [Doc. No. 70, filed April 29, 2011].
It is ORDERED:

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [47] is GRANTED as was
stated on the record on March 21, 2011. The plaintiffs had
requested an evidentiary hearing to rebut allegations in the motion
but have failed to appear, even by telephone, for the hearing they
requested. All other matters were resolved at the March hearing.

It is ORDERED:

The deposition of Mr. Smith has not been noticed for the week of
May 2, 2011 and therefore will not be taken. The court required Mr.
Smith to appear in Denver during the week of May 2, 2011. The
court noted that Mr. Smith was present in the courtroom. The

plaintiffs have therefore forfeited their right to take Mr. Smith’s
deposition.
It is ORDERED:

To the extent Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice F.R.E 201(d)
[Doc. No. 70, filed April 29, 2011] is considered a motion regarding
the Thursday afternoon setting of Elizabeth Paquet’s deposition,
the Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The court notes that
the defendant, in compliance with the court’s minute order, has reset the deposition to take place May 3, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

It is ORDERED:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Hearing [67] is
GRANTED to the extent the depositions are rescheduled, with
Elizabeth Paquet’s deposition beginning May 3, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
and Guy Paquet’s deposition beginning May 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
as previously noticed.

It is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Reset [73] is DENIED. The court
notes that had the plaintiffs requested to appear by telephone at the
hearing the court would have been inclined to grant such a motion,
even in light of the fact that it was the plaintiffs who requested to
appear in person and provide their testimony which necessitated
the hearing.

It is ORDERED:

Reasonable sanctions will be imposed on Plaintiff’s counsel and the
plaintiffs for failure to attend, at least by telephone, this hearing.
Defense counsel will submit a cost statement detailing their
attorney fees for appearing as well as lodging expenses for
Sunday, May 1, 2011.

The Court has reviewed the criteria under Ehrenhouse v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th
Cir. 1992) to determine if extraordinary sanctions should be considered. The Court
finds there is substantial prejudice to the defendant, who flew to Denver for the purpose
of this hearing and depositions set for the week of May 2, 2011 upon specific order of
this court after the March 21, 2011 hearing. There were no objections filed to the order
requiring all parties to appear in Denver, Colorado during the week of May 2, 2011 for
properly noticed depositions and the May 2, 1011 hearing. The Court will further
consider the amount of interference with the judicial process and the culpability of the
plaintiffs in light of proceedings scheduled for the remainder of the week.
Court in Recess: 9:37 a.m.
Hearing concluded.
Total In-Court Time 00:20
*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at [phone].

Page 2 of 2